ILNews

Opinions Aug. 27, 2014

August 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, Deceased
49S05-1404-CC-209
Civil collection. Affirms award of $50,440 in attorney fees to the estate from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The fee cap provision in the Medical Malpractice Act does not directly apply to the fund to limit its liability. The fund may be required to pay more than 15 percent in attorney fees.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kenneth Owen Scrogham v. Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security
13-3601
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Reverses denial of application for disability benefits and remands for further proceedings. The administrative law judge’s methodology was flawed in several respects. Three logical errors – overstating the significance of Scrogham’s daily activities, overreliance on his rehabilitative efforts as proof of his fitness for full-time work, and misinterpreting the significance of his extensive treatment – had a material effect on the ALJ’s credibility and residual functional capacity assessments.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marquise Lee v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-CR-869
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms Lee’s conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery. Declines Lee’s request to follow the reasoning of the Young panel. Holds that he did not preserve this issue for appellate review and that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it entered judgment against Lee for attempted aggravated battery as an inherently lesser included offense to the state’s charge of murder.

Thomas Walter Gorski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A04-1404-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury and attempted dealing in a narcotic drug as a Class B felony.

Cohen & Malad, LLP v. John P. Daly, Jr., Golitko & Daly, P.C. and Golitko Legal Group, P.C. (NFP)
29A02-1308-PL-741
Civil plenary. Affirms that Cohen & Malad is not due quantum meruit compensation from John Daly and Golitko & Daly after Daly took 24 cases with him when he left Cohen & Malad and joined Golitko & Daly.

Jaro Mayda II v. Melinda D. Barnette (NFP)
34A05-1403-CC-101
Civil collection. Affirms order granting Barnette’s motion to dismiss Mayda’s complaint against her alleging fraud, defamation and failure to repay a loan purportedly established by oral agreement.

Latoya C. Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-867
Criminal. Grants rehearing, but declines to reverse conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery.

Layne L. Dellamuth and Anita M. Dellamuth v. Ken's Carpets Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a Carpets Unlimited (NFP)
74A01-1404-CC-165
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Carpets Unlimited on its complaint against the Dellamuths for failure to pay a balance owed on an account.

Evanston Insurance Company and Markel Corporation v. Samantha Meeks Family Practice, Inc., Samantha Meeks, and George Edwin Grant, et al. (NFP)
33A01-1401-PL-32
Civil plenary. Reverses and remands with instructions to deny the summary judgment motion of Meeks and her practice and grant the summary judgment motion of Evanston Insurance and Markel Corp. over whether a policy was in effect when Meeks made her claim.  

Frank Blythe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1061
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies dealing in a narcotic drug and dealing in a controlled substance.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT